Originally posted by Adam_PoELmao, this makes for an amusing read. 😂
Since you are apparently incompetent, here you go.
Originally posted by Surtur
[b]"Freedom breeds inequality. Unless you have freedom to be unequal, there is no such thing as freedom." - William F. Buckley, Jr. [/B]
A society with just freedom or just equality would be a very bad one.
Originally posted by Surtur
Lol wait a minute...what? Is that true?
Yes it is, just like he didn't deny other baked goods to the couple. They could have bought food when they were there, he just said no to making a wedding cake, not we don't service gay couples here.
But Jack Phillips, the owner of the bakery, refused to make them a cake. Phillips, who describes himself as a “cake artist,” is also a Christian who closes his business on Sundays and refuses to design custom cakes that conflict with his religious beliefs – for example, cakes that contain alcohol, have Halloween themes or celebrate a divorce or same-sex marriage.
Originally posted by snowdragon
Yes it is, just like he didn't deny other baked goods to the couple. They could have bought food when they were there, he just said no to making a wedding cake, not we don't service gay couples here.
Okay so there it is. He refused to make the design they wanted because he felt it conflicted with his religious beliefs. This shouldn't have even gone to trial, it's ridiculous.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
Shouldn't freedom and equality hold equal weight as primciples?
If you're talking about equality under the law, then yes absolutely that shouldn't be infringed upon, but equality under the law isn't a form of equality that forces a concession on liberty, rather it is conducive to liberty, and they are not principles in opposition to each other here.
Equality of access to private services is much more sketchy, less compelling a case on principle, and less fundamental a principle than either equality under the law or freedom of speech, so if equality of access to other people's private services is weighed against freedom of speech, freedom of speech is absolutely more important because to censor or compel someone's speech with force is absolutely a violation of their natural rights, and a private business discriminating... not so much. A person has much more entitlement to their own words than a person does to somebody else's labor.
And lastly if you're talking about equality of outcome... equality of outcome is flat out immoral and is the principle behind Marxism. If you were to way freedom and equality in economics, they are most certainly not equal principles. If you have a completely unregulated economy, total economic freedom, you might think that's not desirable, you might think it abandons too many people, but it would certainly be a favorable system to the complete opposite end of the spectrum in a communist state for example, whereas the extreme of economic liberty may leave a minority of people miserable, the extreme of economic equality makes everyone equal in how miserable they are.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Depends on the type of equality.If you're talking about equality under the law, then yes absolutely that shouldn't be infringed upon, but equality under the law isn't a form of equality that forces a concession on liberty, rather it is conducive to liberty, and they are not principles in opposition to each other here.
Equality of access to private services is much more sketchy, less compelling a case on principle, and less fundamental a principle than either equality under the law or freedom of speech, so if equality of access to other people's private services is weighed against freedom of speech, freedom of speech is absolutely more important because to censor or compel someone's speech with force is absolutely a violation of their natural rights, and a private business discriminating... not so much. A person has much more entitlement to their own words than a person does to somebody else's labor.
And lastly if you're talking about equality of outcome... equality of outcome is flat out immoral and is the principle behind Marxism. If you were to way freedom and equality in economics, they are most certainly not equal principles. If you have a completely unregulated economy, total economic freedom, you might think that's not desirable, you might think it abandons too many people, but it would certainly be a favorable system to the complete opposite end of the spectrum in a communist state for example, whereas the extreme of economic liberty may leave a minority of people miserable, the extreme of economic equality makes everyone equal in how miserable they are.
Yep, they so often confuse equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.
Originally posted by Rockydonovang
the relationship between sexuality and religion is merely a social construct and hence irrelevant.
Guys, Rocky has spoken! All those dead and beaten gays, past, present, and future! Who cares about them! Because Rocky says so: the mere social constructs that result in our brothers and sisters being persecuted, beaten, and killed are irrelevant.
Whew, glad Rocky settled that for us.
MAGA, amiright, Rocky?
Originally posted by dadudemon
Guys, Rocky has spoken! All those dead and beaten gays, past, present, and future! Who cares about them! Because Rocky says so: the mere social constructs that result in our brothers and sisters being persecuted, beaten, and killed are irrelevant.
It's nonsensical you expect us to feel a dude's religious rights are being impeached on because of his religion's hateful past.
Gay people did not attack christanity, chritianity attacked gay people. Any relationship between religion and gays has been the result of religious people constructing one
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Depends on the type of equality.If you're talking about equality under the law, then yes absolutely that shouldn't be infringed upon, but equality under the law isn't a form of equality that forces a concession on liberty, rather it is conducive to liberty, and they are not principles in opposition to each other here.Equality of access to private services is much more sketchy, less compelling a case on principle, and less fundamental a principle than either equality under the law or freedom of speech, so if equality of access to other people's private services is weighed against freedom of speech, freedom of speech is absolutely more important because to censor or compel someone's speech with force is absolutely a violation of their natural rights, and a private business discriminating... not so much. A person has much more entitlement to their own words than a person does to somebody else's labor.
Fair enough. So would you agree that if discrimination involved basic human needs like say housing or water, it wouldn't be ok?
And lastly if you're
Originally posted by Emperordmb
talking about equality of outcome... equality of outcome is flat out immoral and is the principle behind Marxism. If you were to way freedom and equality in economics, they are most certainly not equal principles. If you have a completely unregulated economy, total economic freedom, you might think that's not desirable, you might think it abandons too many people, but it would certainly be a favorable system to the complete opposite end of the spectrum in a communist state for example, whereas the extreme of economic liberty may leave a minority of people miserable, the extreme of economic equality makes everyone equal in how miserable they are.
And from what I recall from sophomore history, full blown free market economies resulted in mass child labor, mass starvation, and mass famine. And even those countries weren't completely free market.